Showing posts with label The New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The New York Times. Show all posts

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Strangest Cover Stories of the Year


...that I remember.

For newspapers.

First off, the Star-Ledger ran an analysis of the Sri-Lankan singer MIA's hit "Paper Planes". The article, written by a mommy blogger (as far as I recall, this is the only full-length feature she's published since blogging for nj.com), explores why the song is a hit and why it's caused some controversy--a type of article, minus the local quotes, that would be more at home in a music magazine like Rolling Stone. The song is mostly known for its gunshots and cash register rings in the chorus than for anything else, since practically every word (including the title) is indecipherable.

The New York Times caught a lot of flack for running a front-page story on Angelina Jolie's relationship with the celebrity press, specifically People magazine. It was pretty brash, saying that Ms. Jolie works the press to such an extent that she effectively controls coverage of herself and her family:
When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into the future.

According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an “editorial plan” providing a road map of the layout, these people say.
She's been transformed from freaky sexaholic to humanitarian mother, despite being widely vilified for wrecking Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt's marriage. But while fascinating to those interested in celebrity, journalism, or just plain 'ol gossip, it's one of those articles that sticks out precisely because it's on the front page. Really? you say. It's that slow of a news day?

The Times' public editor points out that the article wasn't as accurate as it could have been, and calls for a correction, which was never given. But he also explains that while many people are angered when the paper covers "less than weighty" subjects in such high-profile detail, it's the newspaper's job to cover "all the news that's fit to print", whether weighty or not. Placement, of course, as well as tone, angle, packaging, etc, are all key components of how a story is accepted (or not), regardless of the facts. Obviously, "strangest cover stories of the year" are almost always never going to be about "weighty" matters, since those are expected to make the front page (and are very troubling when they are not).

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Huh?

Has anyone noticed that the New York Times website layout has changed?

This has only happened to me a few times, but the article becomes centered, written in blue Arial, instead of the black Georgia that it's used for forever.

What's up with that?

Friday, April 25, 2008

We're Still at Risk

No wonder why so many children have difficulty with word problems: "Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices" suggests that real-world math examples undercut the actual mathematics because it's harder to focus when details get in the way. They open with a classic "train problem" of times and schedules that are always ridiculous, the kind of problems that frustrate me and which I inevitably leave blank. Comparing that with the simple equation after it--well, how am I supposed to know what variable fits where? The concept is completely lost in words, but I know how to do the math.

I've always felt that math should stick to numbers, with certain punctuation marks and letters as worthwhile substitutes. Save the stories for English class, it'll just confuse us. I was one of those kids who'd point out logical inconsistencies with the real world even if they had nothing to do with the problem, exactly the type of thing that pisses off both students and teachers alike. Word problems were the scourge of my mathematical existence for most of school. Those train problems always confused the hell out of me, and frankly, I preferred the straight-alone algebraic equations. I also never liked multiple choice questions for math problems, because if I did the problem and was off by a little bit I couldn't possibly pick A or D, thereby getting the entire question wrong, instead of only losing a point or two from some silly error.

____________________________________________


The New York Times today published several articles dealing with education, partly because it's been 25 years since the seminal "A Nation at Risk" was released. The politics behind the controversial report are very interesting, as Ronald Reagan only cared about instituting school prayer back and actually wanted to demolish the Department of Education. But Americans reacted to the core message of the report: That the educational system was mediocre and the US would lose its advantage in the world if something wasn't done. Reagan instead abandoned his political agenda and jumped on the bandwagon, and education has been covered by the media and is consistently listed as one of the vital issues facing Americans.

However, as much as our educational system has changed in the last 25 years, new technologies and new fads in other sectors have undermined learning. For one thing, IM and text-message speak--the lol linguistics that make my blood boil--are beginning to seep into schoolwork. This isn't surprising in the least, but it's something that drives me crazy. I understand not typing properly in IMs, and capitalizing "I" in text messages is usually difficult and fruitless. However, there's a difference between "ill" and "i'll", "were" and "we're", "wont" and "won't". That little apostrophe separates two different words with two different meanings. Trying to decipher the message with "intentional" typos is annoying. For the most part, we've been able to adapt, but it's still a glaring sign of laziness. That extra keystroke is not hard; it's automatic for me.

This worries me. Richard Sterling, executive director of the National Writing Project and a professor at the University of Southern California, Berkeley, wants to throw out capitalization too. "When his teenage son asked what the presence of the capital letter added to what the period at the end of the sentence signified, he had no answer," reports the Times. Excuse me? A guy who's in charge of a group that aims to improve the teaching of writing and who grades papers does not know how to answer this question? It's for readability, the ability to visually denote the beginning of one idea (the sentence) from another. Without punctuation, reading would be a headache, as we would never be able to follow a story or an idea without getting confused. Anyone who's read stream-of-conscious works or On the Road understands this.

Of course, texting and IMing aren't considered real writing. If you're sending a quick message about meeting for lunch, it doesn't have to be formal. Trying to relay dialogue or a story over IM is very different from verbally telling the person, and concessions are made. However, emails, blog postings, essays for God's sake, are. They are time-consuming (at least for me), and for many people, they are graded or judged. Don't dumb yourself down for the sake of expidency.

What's also notable in the article--and which I've seen elsewhere--is the statistic that the percentage of black teenagers who write in personal journals (they don't define this term though) is greater than the percentage of whites. I think it's pretty self-explanatory that girls are more likely to do so than boys, but the perception that blogging is more of a certain type of white-hipster thing (as pronounced by the media, natch) isn't true.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Does a feature story on one boy's bullying warrant coverage in the Times?

I read the feature on Monday about Billy Wolfe, and his horrible bullying saga…but I’m missing the point. At the end of the article, I went, “That’s it?” It ends with a quote by him, in reference to an incident where he opens a textbook to find hate message directed at him. Maybe because the article is making no judgments, just simply laying the story out there, is why it feels incomplete. What’s happening? What’s going to happen? It’s sad to say that in situations like this, many families move, but I completely agree with the Wolfes in that it is incredibly unfair to make them move and that the school is basically forcing them to do so, or to take such dramatic action as suing them.

The idea behind an article like this would be to highlight bullying. But I think the paper did a poor job of it—by focusing on one boy in particular, we only get his story, not even if it’s indicative of bullying levels across the country. His story needs to be tied into something larger—or maybe that’s just me expecting traditional journalism. “A Boy the Bullies Love to Hate” is part of Dan Barry’s “This Land” column, which tells human interest stories from all areas of the United States. Ok, sounds cool. But…what is the point Barry is making, other than publicizing Billy Wolfe’s case? That’s not a bad thing at all, and he’s doing it in a low-key way, even if the article is currently listed on their most-emailed list. From reading articles like this, it seems like bullying has increased, or maybe it’s just that it’s getting more coverage—which always skews perception and numbers. The story, like most bullying ones, is sad. What breaks your heart is that the kid is probably going to grow up with a lot of problems, thanks to what he’s experienced. Focusing on school is hard if everything school-related is a source of constant anxiety, and only doing well will spur others to further their harassment.

The article notes, in the issue of fairness, that some people think that Billy has contributed to his bullying; that is, he’s instigated or egged on his tormentors. I’m sure he has—what teenage boy doesn’t snarl an insult or hurl his fist when he’s reached his breaking point? It may not be right, but it’s true. It’s also true that sustained beatings for several years when clearly he is the only one needs some serious monitoring and some serious questions answered pronto.

Being the victim of bullying is always an unwinnable situation. You tell your parents or other authority figures, and just about whatever happens will come back to haunt you: you feel like a sissy, weak, a failure, but often it’s as a last resort. And whatever disciplinary action happens, it just makes others angrier and can possibly start a whole new level of agony. Even if the bully goes away, the lasting scars—and his friends—still linger.